Question

[Austrian Strategist]

Is Tacops Pbem fun, too? Can you Pbem at all? Is the game real-time or turn-based?

What about playing Opfor? Interesting, or are their options more limited, which would make them stereotypical and boring to play?

Is there something like a QB in Tacops? Can you make your own scenarios/maps? (I had never heard about this series -is it possible to shortly explain where it differs from CM? -Thanks.)

[ June 05, 2002, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Austrian Strategist ]

[Stoffel]

To answer your questions,

yes you can pbem,and yes its fun,you can also play in TCP/internet multiplayer mode.

8 different force colours are possible.

Its turn based 1 minute turns,(though in multiplayer mode turns can be made longer i.e. two or more minutes.

So far there is no QB option like in CM,you cant play as opfor against the pc.

A cm style editor is on the wishlist but doesnt come in the near future.

You can create a map and a scenario with your own troops in pbem and tcp,opfor has no restrictions

What is tacops?

tacops is an abstracted way of fighting ,basically you move unit icons on a map.

but you can employ reallife tactics many which will not work in CM.

It doesnt have a sophisticated 3d area as CM but it rocks.

It also has a very nice SOP standard orders menu.

It features

Latest units and weapons

Engineers and engineering tools and vehicles

Civilians armed and unarmed.

Scores of all kinds of helicopters (un)armed

Umpire mode and tools for multiplayer mode

I can only say ,buy the game!

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

>Can you Pbem at all

TacOps v3 and v4 can be played PBEM between two players by exchanging orders files as attachments to email.

TacOps v4 will also allow up to 20 players to play in the same battle via a network (LAN and or Internet). [The military training version allows more than 20 to play.]

>Is the game real-time or turn-based?

Simultaneous, one minute turns.

TacOps is a "WEGO" game rather than "IGOYOUGO".

TacOps is played in simultaneous one minute turns. Each turn consists of two phases: an orders phase and a combat phase. In the orders phase each player gives orders to his units using buttons in windows and by tracing the intended movement of the units with mouse clicks on the screen. Once all orders have been given, the combat phase begins. During the combat phase the units of both players, under computer control, simultaneously carry out their orders for movement and combat for one scale minute. You only observe during the combat phase; you can not give or change orders until the next orders phase.

>Is there something like a QB in Tacops?

What is "QB"?

>Can you make your own scenarios/maps?

Yes.

>is it possible to shortly explain where it differs from CM?

TacOps portrays a higher scale of operations than CM - i.e. the "grand tactical" level. TacOps is aimed at Battalion to Regimental/Brigade level operations. Each unit icon in TacOps represents a squad to company sized unit.

[Stoffel]

Major,

QB stands for quick battle,the not so very loved feature of CM to generate your own battle against the pc or someone else with you r own preferences in weather,terrain and troops.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Austrian Strategist:

Is Tacops Pbem fun, too? Can you Pbem at all? Is the game real-time or turn-based?

I know you are into CM, so I answer with references to CMBO.

Tacops is like Combat Mission WEGO with 1 minute action phases.

PBEM is as CMBO, but it is a "trusted" model. Instead of 3 mails per turn you have two turns in each mail. If you want to cheat you can replot after viewing the action.

But overall the much tighter PBEM is great, if you sit own in the evening you get two action phases and you don't have the awful "view-only" mail of CMBO. TacOps scenarios are longer from a scenario/mission standpoint, but more game end prematuerly than in CM. In CM you always have enough infantry straggler and crews left to keep fighting, even after heavy artillery hits. TacOps arty is more deadly and the spaces are so big you can't get anywhere without vehicles, so games often become pointless after heavy clashes.

What about playing Opfor? Interesting, or are their options more limited, which would make them stereotypical and boring to play?

Several aspects here:

Pink^H^H^Hred force actually has a wider range of weapons and vehicles, both in general and as a mix in typical scenarios.

Some of red force's limitations and shortcomings are usually switched off for challenging and balanced gameplay. You give Red-equipped forces better warheads, comparable to blue warheads, and you give them thermal sights.

Is there something like a QB in Tacops? Can you make your own scenarios/maps? (I had never heard about this series -is it possible to shortly explain where it differs from CM? -Thanks.)

There is no quickbattle as in CM, but it is easy to take an existing map and place your custom units on it.

In general, in TacOps you do not have many surprises in unit selection, not many advantages to gain from certain combinations. There is no buying with prices associated to units. You will usually play realstic mixes or tell you opponent you don't want stupid unit X and want to try Y instead and then exchange the units on the map.

I'm preparing a TacOps tactical primer for CM players.

[Austrian Strategist]

Stoffel,

Thanks!

Originally posted by Stoffel:

...but you can employ reallife tactics many which will not work in CM.

Any examples? I´m curious.

Sounds like yet another 'must-have' game from Battlefront!

[Austrian Strategist]

Major H,

Thanks!

Originally posted by MajorH:

What is "QB"?

It´s a kind of 'Random Scenario' mode in CM. (Computer creates random map, both players 'buy' their forces with points.)

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I know you are into CM, so I answer with references to CMBO.

Thanks; great!

Pink^H^H^Hred force actually has a wider range of weapons and vehicles, both in general and as a mix in typical scenarios.

Can you 'mix' to simulate some neutrals or 3rd world countries who have both Blue and Red equipment?

Some of red force's limitations and shortcomings are usually switched off for challenging and balanced gameplay. You give Red-equipped forces better warheads, comparable to blue warheads, and you give them thermal sights.

My concern here was not so much about technology but hard-coded 'doctrinal' disadvantages for Opfor. [such as less flexibility/slower reaction time/fewer orders options] So there are none of those?

I'm preparing a TacOps tactical primer for CM players.

Looking forward to it!

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Austrian Strategist:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Pink^H^H^Hred force actually has a wider range of weapons and vehicles, both in general and as a mix in typical scenarios.

Can you 'mix' to simulate some neutrals or 3rd world countries who have both Blue and Red equipment?</font>

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by redwolf:

In CMBO terms, TacOps units always perform as advertisted, no morale, no different training quality.

No experience/morale? Then it will be hard to simulate a fight between factions of vastly different motivation level. How do you simulate Elites vs. Militias? :confused:

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Austrian Strategist:

No experience/morale? Then it will be hard to simulate a fight between factions of vastly different motivation level. How do you simulate Elites vs. Militias? :confused:

You don't. TacOps units always handle their equipment at the maximum capabilities of the equipment. They are not really robots. They do stop on their own under fire, but they never run away or become unusable while alife. They lose precision under fire. If you want them to run away you have SOP settings "pop smoke and reverse <x> meters". TacOps has no delay in executing orders.

It is really a different game. Don't think of it as CM without morale. The morale is more hidden by the different game scale than by programmer choice. And the SOP entries are way better than the move/sneak/withdraw/delay/scared-chicken control mechanism in CMBO, IMHO.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by redwolf:

It is really a different game. Don't think of it as CM without morale. The morale is more hidden by the different game scale than by programmer choice. And the SOP entries are way better than the move/sneak/withdraw/delay/scared-chicken control mechanism in CMBO, IMHO.

Hmmmm. I´m not really sold on this feature. I´d find it really fun -and realistic- to simulate combat between two third-rate forces, where the major problem is that absolutely no one wants to put up a fight.

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

> Then it will be hard to simulate a fight between factions of

> vastly different motivation level. How do you simulate Elites vs. Militias?

I suppose one could scatter small, weak units on a map and then shell them unmerciffuly with arty until the regulars can just drive through their positions .

TacOps scenarios currently portray opponents who are trained, equipped, and willing to fight. Other situations could be coded and they could be useful for military training but I don't see much point in doing such scenarios for recreational gaming.

>I´d find it really fun -and realistic- to simulate

>combat between two third-rate forces, where

>the major problem is that absolutely no one

>wants to put up a fight.

Twisted .

[James Sterrett]

Regarding doctrinal differences - "and artillery is a little different"...

In v4, you can alter the different artillery timing parameters at will using the umpire tools. Thus Red is no longer stuck with a longer called fire delay than Blue, unless you want it to be.

[Jingo]

QUOTE]No experience/morale? Then it will be hard to simulate a fight between factions of vastly different motivation level. How do you simulate Elites vs. Militias? :confused:

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

>Although morale isn't modeled,

This is not technically accurate.

TacOps does model "good" morale and good training.

TacOps does not model "poor" morale.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by MajorH:

TacOps does model "good" morale and good training.

TacOps does not model "poor" morale.

I understand; but then it won´t apply to most real-world situations -which are not full-scale wars between super powers.

Armed struggles in the past -and probably future- few decades were/are more likely between 3rd world countries, between a 3rd world country and a primary power, between a 3rd world country and a secondary power, between two secondary powers, between paramilitary groups in a civil war...

In all those cases, mediocre and/or poor morale, training, equipment and experience are to be expected on one or both sides. So I still think not modeling bad morale/insufficient training etc is limiting realism most drastically.

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

If this is really important to you then you are free to use items in the Options menu to ...

A. Exchange OPFOR weapons for older, less capable models.

B. Eliminate x number of units from the OPFOR order of battle, where x represents your assessment of the percentage reduction in combat capability due to poor morale or poor training.

[ June 07, 2002, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: MajorH ]

[James Sterrett]

Also remember that in an umpired game you can add any morale model and effects you desire, with the umpire putting them into effect as necessary by deleting units, forcing them to retreat, restricting their ability to fire by setting their ranges to zero, and so forth.